Based on the G100UL fuel leak thread what's your position?

[GeeBee]

5 minutes ago, Sabremech said:

Who are the STC police at the fuel pumps? What’s to stop you or anyone else from pumping GU100LL into your plane and using it? I don’t know how you can police whether you have the paperwork that gives you the privilege  to pay more for your fuel or not!   ????

If you crash or have an accident with G100UL in your tanks with no STC what would the FAA and the insurance company say? I can see a denied claim.

FWIW I see the STC route as smart as you have to create a ICA for an STC which limits both your liability as well as insuring people use your product correctly.

[Pinecone]

22 hours ago, Sabremech said:

Sounds like you’ve been communicating with George as this is almost a carbon copy of what he sent me. If GAMI came up with an acceptable blend, what makes you think some other company with bigger pockets can’t do the same or better? I’m betting that there will be competition for GAMI in the future. They may be the first but won’t be the only. Give it time. 

Except that several major players in the petroleum market have tried and failed and stopped trying.

[Pinecone]

18 hours ago, PT20J said:

The Lycoming IO-360-A series (200 hp) has a compression ratio of 8.7:1.

The Lycoming IO-390-A series (210 hp) has a compression ratio of 8.9:1.

The Lycoming 0-360-A series (180 hp) has a compression ratio of 8.5:1.

I do know that the AEIO-360-B2F (180 HP) can use 91/96 avgas.

At least according to the placards and POH for my CAP-10.

[Pinecone]

17 minutes ago, Sabremech said:

Who are the STC police at the fuel pumps? What’s to stop you or anyone else from pumping GU100LL into your plane and using it? I don’t know how you can police whether you have the paperwork that gives you the privilege  to pay more for your fuel or not!   ????

None and nothing.

Just like no one polices you using MOGAS.

But, your insurance company might have a say if you have a mishap that is fuel related.

[GeeBee]

1 minute ago, Pinecone said:

I do know that the AEIO-360-B2F (180 HP) can use 91/96 avgas.

At least according to the placards and POH for my CAP-10.

It is a 8.5:1 engine.

[Pinecone]

33 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

With regard to paying for the GAMI STC, George Braly can correct me if I am wrong but GAMI is allowing any refiner to blend G100UL royalty free. What I see is GAMI  monetizing G100UL via the STC and not at the pump so as to allow as many refiners as possible to make it providing it passes GAMI's QA protocol. The monetizing model makes sense if you want the producer side to easily make a steady supply without tracking royalties and licensing. In essence like the IBM PC he has open sourced the production and made the user buy the license. Just as anyone could produce a PC but the end user would have to buy a license for the operating system.

I think that may be a startup thing, to not charge for making a batch.

In 2020, about 412 thousand gallons of AVGAS were burned PER DAY. Or about 150 million per year.

So even at 1 cent per gallon, GAMI would be making 1.5 million per year for just licensing making G100UL.   10 cents per gallon would be 15 million.

GAMI doesn't need to charge much per gallon to make some nice money.

 

[Sabremech]

10 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

None and nothing.

Just like no one polices you using MOGAS.

But, your insurance company might have a say if you have a mishap that is fuel related.

What could possibly go wrong? Would have to be proven that it was caused directly from the 100UL and everything we’re being sold says its better for our engines. 

[Pinecone]

Just now, Sabremech said:

What could possibly go wrong? Would have to be proven that it was caused directly from the 100UL and everything we’re being sold says its better for our engines. 

Agreed.

[Sabremech]

31 minutes ago, Ryan ORL said:

Because you were quite transparently implying that I am some kind of shill for GAMI or G100UL.  Even now-- "the script", as if I am not capable of independent thought.

Really? I don’t think so but hey, whatever. 

[Justin Schmidt]

43 minutes ago, McMooney said:

where do they have testing 100R or Lydon won't work

I may have misunderstood your post, took it as general compression Ratio vs octane. I was saying their test bed has shown the detonation profiles and how lower octane causes issues in higher compression ratio engines. Not sure they tested ul94 or 100r or if they are even allowed to. George can speak to that. Would be interesting to see the detonation profile of 100r and if is causes any. 100r has only been used on low compression ratio engines as far as I know

Interesting thing about 100r, the use of etbe which mn completely banned mtbe, etbe, and tame in 2005 according to EPA unless it has been superseded 

[Justin Schmidt]

26 minutes ago, Sabremech said:

What could possibly go wrong? Would have to be proven that it was caused directly from the 100UL and everything we’re being sold says its better for our engines. 

Isn't it true any mishap everyone and anything including little Billy's imaginary purple polkadot unicorn that shits Skittles and smells of sherbet get sued? That means if anything is found that was used on a certified aircraft that didn't have an STC or otherwise legal process for it to be there, that gets marked as a probable cause. Especially ga where ntsb really doesn't put much effort into

[Sabremech]

51 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Except that several major players in the petroleum market have tried and failed and stopped trying.

Yes, but again, if GAMI did it, so will some other company. They will have competition. 

[Marc_B]

4 hours ago, donkaye said:

see the light staining on both side of my fuel tanks

I would really appreciate seeing more side by side testing on a painted panel using common white paints with different surface prep to see how that varies in staining and protection.  Given it’s been said to be a UV reaction, probably a control surface with multiple metered drops of fuel allowed to dry in full sun for a week would work.

products would like tested: oxidized paint, area of paint cleaned with basic soap and water, area with paint cleaned with common products (wash wax all, wing wipe), waxed paint, ceramic coated paint, etc. 

Also be great if you could do those surfaces with half just G100UL dropped and let dry, and the other half with same treatments but with wiping up drops (ie refueling hygiene) instead of letting dry in the sun.

Damage to, or even just staining my paint, after following basic precautions is a no-go for me unless no other choice.  I’m with Don, obvious visible damage would drive me nuts.

@George Braly Even if GAMI doesn’t see cosmetics as “detrimental,” it would be appreciated if there was clear information on what was tested and how those things varied in mitigation. 
 

How does one prevent damage like this?

[MikeOH]

51 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

How does one prevent damage like this?

Oh, that's easy!

Just don't EVER spill a SINGLE drop!  You're a careful pilot, right?  Should be no problem

[George Braly]

39 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

I would really appreciate seeing more side by side testing on a painted panel using common white paints with different surface prep to see how that varies in staining and protection.  Given it’s been said to be a UV reaction, probably a control surface with multiple metered drops of fuel allowed to dry in full sun for a week would work.

products would like tested: oxidized paint, area of paint cleaned with basic soap and water, area with paint cleaned with common products (wash wax all, wing wipe), waxed paint, ceramic coated paint, etc. 

Also be great if you could do those surfaces with half just G100UL dropped and let dry, and the other half with same treatments but with wiping up drops (ie refueling hygiene) instead of letting dry in the sun.

Damage to, or even just staining my paint, even with basic precautions is a no-go for me unless no other choice.  I’m with Don, obvious visible damage would drive me nuts.

@George Braly Even if GAMI doesn’t see cosmetics as “detrimental,” it would be appreciated if there was clear information on what was tested and how those things varied in mitigation. 
 

How does one prevent damage like this?

 

The missing pieces of paint  (very old paint) were already present when the airplane came to GAMI in Ada in October of 2023.   The tan / brown staining on the fuel cap is from fuel spills after the airplane left GAMI sometime in the spring of 2024.   It had been refueled by us multiple times with no brown stains. 

The "good fuel hygiene" protocol is to simply absorb / wipe up the fuel  in a timely manner, if it is spilled. 

How to prevent ?   A good application of crystal coating or a graphene coating in that area is very helpful.   Good fuel hygiene is still called for.   But with the crystal or graphene coatings,  one can often "buff out" any stain - - but it takes some elbow grease.   

In fact, after our extensive testing of those coatings during the summer and fall of 2024, I am seriously impressed by their effectiveness.  Simple to apply.     Makes maintaining the paint (anywhere) on the aircraft much easier, and makes bug removal on the leading edges much easier. 

 

 

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

If you crash or have an accident with G100UL in your tanks with no STC what would the FAA and the insurance company say? I can see a denied claim.

FWIW I see the STC route as smart as you have to create a ICA for an STC which limits both your liability as well as insuring people use your product correctly.

LOL!

If the crash was unrelated to the use of G100UL there is no way the insurance is going to deny the claim.  Hell, they've paid out for planes out of annual, etc.  Since the FAA approved use on ALL piston airplanes I have trouble seeing how they're going to come after you, either.

[GeeBee]

2 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

LOL!

If the crash was unrelated to the use of G100UL there is no way the insurance is going to deny the claim.  Hell, they've paid out for planes out of annual, etc.  Since the FAA approved use on ALL piston airplanes I have trouble seeing how they're going to come after you, either.

Depends if the hangman's noose needs a body.

Crash into an elementary school and kill 9 children without an STC authorization, the gallows awaits. Ruin the furrows in a  plowed field, nobody cares.

[MikeOH]

5 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Depends if the hangman's noose needs a body.

Crash into an elementary school and kill 9 children without an STC authorization, the gallows awaits. Ruin the furrows in a  plowed field, nobody cares.

LOL, once again!

Crash into a school and kill 9 children and you ARE getting sued no matter what.  The insurance company has a duty to defend...they're not getting out of that simply because of lack of paperwork.

[Sabremech]

1 hour ago, Marc_B said:

I would really appreciate seeing more side by side testing on a painted panel using common white paints with different surface prep to see how that varies in staining and protection.  Given it’s been said to be a UV reaction, probably a control surface with multiple metered drops of fuel allowed to dry in full sun for a week would work.

products would like tested: oxidized paint, area of paint cleaned with basic soap and water, area with paint cleaned with common products (wash wax all, wing wipe), waxed paint, ceramic coated paint, etc. 

Also be great if you could do those surfaces with half just G100UL dropped and let dry, and the other half with same treatments but with wiping up drops (ie refueling hygiene) instead of letting dry in the sun.

Damage to, or even just staining my paint, even with basic precautions is a no-go for me unless no other choice.  I’m with Don, obvious visible damage would drive me nuts.

@George Braly Even if GAMI doesn’t see cosmetics as “detrimental,” it would be appreciated if there was clear information on what was tested and how those things varied in mitigation. 
 

How does one prevent damage like this?

Strip the paint and go with a polished wing! 

[Jsno]

Crash into a school and kill 9 kids: you wont be around anyway!

[GeeBee]

44 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

LOL, once again!

Crash into a school and kill 9 children and you ARE getting sued no matter what.  The insurance company has a duty to defend...they're not getting out of that simply because of lack of paperwork.

Yes, the insurance company has a duty to defend you from civil liability. Administrative or criminal charges, not so much. Guess which one the FAA will bring? Care to buy a vowel?

[Justin Schmidt]

2 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Yes, the insurance company has a duty to defend you from civil liability. Administrative or criminal charges, not so much. Guess which one the FAA will bring? Care to buy a vowel?

FAA can only do civil fines. However, recommendation to doj is what can happen.

[GeeBee]

And of course the DOJ never listens to the FAA

[Justin Schmidt]

1 minute ago, GeeBee said:

And of course the DOJ never listens to the FAA

Depends if it makes a point...

[GeeBee]

I've had two passengers that had the point made.